---

Forex multi-account manager Z-X-N
Accepts global forex account operation, investment, and trading
Assists family office investment and autonomous management

---

---

In two-way foreign exchange trading, there's a complex relationship between a trader's market judgment and their ultimate profit and loss outcomes.

---

Although many traders demonstrate high accuracy in predicting market trends, the primary cause of losses is often not misjudgment but a failure to control their mindset. Mindset plays a crucial role in forex trading, directly influencing a trader's decision-making process and risk tolerance.
The vast majority of participants in the forex market are retail investors with limited capital, typically entering the market with small amounts. This financial position inherently disadvantages them in managing their mindset. Due to limited funds, these retail investors often harbor a get-rich-quick mentality, hoping to quickly achieve huge returns with a small investment. This mentality is particularly common in the forex market, but it significantly increases trading risk.
Even if these retail investors demonstrate sound investment techniques and mindset control, wealth accumulation still requires long-term, cumulative efforts. However, retail investors with limited capital often lack patience and find it difficult to accept the slow process of wealth growth. They know that accumulating $1,000 to $1,000,000 might take a lifetime, while making $1,000 from $1,000,000 might take just a few hours. This desire for quick profits makes risk-taking a standard trading strategy for most retail investors with limited capital.
In pursuit of quick gains, retail investors tend to use high leverage. While high leverage can magnify returns, it also greatly amplifies risk. When profits are made, they are often eager to lock in profits; when losses occur, they hold on to losses until their positions are wiped out. This trading behavior pattern, while potentially generating significant short-term gains, significantly increases the likelihood of long-term losses.
In fact, in forex trading, if traders avoid using leverage and adopt a light-weight, long-term strategy, the likelihood of losses is significantly reduced. Light-weight trading effectively controls risk, while a long-term strategy helps smooth out the short-term impact of market fluctuations. However, many retail traders, driven by the pursuit of quick returns, choose to use high leverage. They rush to lock in profits when they're profitable, but persist in losing money until their positions are wiped out. This behavior pattern is the root cause of most retail traders' losses.

In two-way forex trading, traders must be aware of a key fact: forex brokers tend to favor high-frequency traders. This phenomenon bears a striking resemblance to the operating model of a casino.

---

In the forex market, high-frequency traders frequently trade, generating significant spread costs. These spread costs constitute the primary source of revenue for forex brokers. Therefore, from a commercial perspective, it's understandable that forex brokers display a clear preference for high-frequency traders.
However, from another perspective, this preference also reveals the complex attitude of forex brokers toward large-capital forex traders. In fact, forex brokers are generally resistant to large-capital forex traders. The reason is that large-cap forex traders tend to be low-frequency investors. They prefer long-term investments rather than frequent short-term trades. Therefore, forex brokers struggle to generate significant spread and commission income from these traders. This contrasts sharply with brokers' business model, which relies on high-frequency trading for profit.
To curb the activities of large-cap forex traders, forex brokers have adopted a common tactic: frequently requiring them to provide proof of funds upon entry. While this practice appears to be for compliance and risk control purposes, it actually creates significant inconvenience for these traders. Long-time forex traders are well aware that this is simply an unspoken industry rule. This practice not only increases compliance costs for traders but also, to a certain extent, limits their market activity.
This phenomenon reflects the conflicting interests between brokers and traders in the forex market. Brokers encourage high-frequency trading to generate stable income, while large-cap traders prefer more conservative, low-frequency investment strategies. This conflict complicates the interaction between these two parties in the market. While high-frequency traders can generate substantial spread revenue for brokers, they often face higher risks and more frequent market fluctuations. Large-cap traders, while trading less frequently, can significantly impact the market with each trade, placing higher demands on brokers' risk management capabilities.
For traders, understanding these industry regulations and brokerage practices is crucial. This not only helps them better plan their trading strategies and avoid unnecessary complications, but also helps them make more informed decisions in complex market environments. For example, traders can consider choosing brokers that are more accommodating to large-cap traders or adjusting their trading frequency to better align with market regulations. Furthermore, by gaining a deeper understanding of the workings of the forex market, traders can improve their risk management skills and achieve more robust investment goals in the market.

In the forex two-way trading market, the multi-account management (MAM/PAMM) model serves as a crucial bridge between professional money managers and ordinary clients. Its operational transparency and data authenticity are directly linked to investors' core interests.

---

However, some forex multi-account managers, lacking compliance awareness and professional ethics, exploit trading platforms' data modification permissions or information asymmetry to conduct illegal operations and mislead clients.
Specifically, these illicit managers deliberately "selectively" filter trading records when presenting historical performance to clients. This involves modifying the trading platform's backend data for losing trades (e.g., deleting losing trades, falsifying loss amounts and trade times), retaining only profitable trades and integrating them into performance reports. This "beautified" list of profitable records often depicts extremely high win rates, stable monthly returns, and extremely low maximum drawdowns, significantly deviating from actual trading performance. The core purpose is to use fabricated performance to attract client funds, which is essentially misleading marketing to investors and a serious violation of the fundamental professional standard of "honest disclosure of performance" in multi-account management.
However, from a practical trading perspective, such illegal operations are extremely time-sensitive, making it difficult to conceal real risks for a long time. Once a manager officially takes over client funds, all real-time trading orders must be connected to the foreign exchange market for matching. Profits and losses during trading are directly reflected in the changes in client account funds. Every transaction record is simultaneously retained by the platform, liquidity providers, and regulators (such as the FCA and ASIC), making it impossible to "cover up" without a trace through back-end modifications. Once the market experiences unexpected volatility (such as the release of major macroeconomic data or geopolitical events), the manager's true operational capabilities and risk control capabilities will be fully exposed. The illusion of "false profits" previously created through data manipulation will quickly collapse, ultimately resulting in actual losses of client funds. This "deceptive" pattern of violations will not only cause the manager to lose client trust but also trigger investigations and penalties from regulators, leading to business suspension, fines, and even criminal liability.
From the perspective of a mature industry, "losses" aren't inherently a negative factor in multi-account management; rather, they represent a normal manifestation of forex trading risk. The forex market is influenced by multiple factors, including exchange rate fluctuations, interest rate policies, and global economic cycles. Even professional managers cannot achieve "zero losses." Truly healthy performance requires "profitable trades covering the costs of losing trades," generating long-term, stable compound returns. Therefore, established MAM/PAMM multi-account managers proactively disclose complete historical trading records (including all profitable and losing trades) to their clients and provide risk reports detailing the causes of losses, mitigation measures, and subsequent optimization plans. Furthermore, they establish a rigorous trading risk control system (such as setting stop-loss ratios, position limits, and risk reserves). Through scientific risk management, they mitigate the impact of losses on overall account returns, rather than resorting to data manipulation to circumvent the issue.
Furthermore, compliant multi-account managers proactively undergo performance audits by third-party auditors, using audited trading records and performance reports as a key factor in attracting clients. This transparency-focused operating model not only meets the compliance requirements of major global foreign exchange regulators for multi-account management businesses, but also builds market reputation through long-term, proven performance, fostering a trusting relationship with clients. This stands in stark contrast to the short-term profit-seeking mentality of illicit managers and is a key hallmark of professional multi-account management.

In two-way forex trading, traders should be wary of the high risks associated with straight-through processing (STP) brokers.

---

Specifically, traders should avoid using high leverage and set stop-loss orders on every trade. This risk management strategy can effectively mitigate the risk of significant losses due to extreme market volatility.
Typically, STP brokers do not pose significant risks to traders. They ensure efficient trade execution by routing client orders directly to forex banks. This model works well under normal market conditions, but can expose potential risks during extreme market events. The Swiss Franc crisis of 2015 is a prime example. At the time, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) pegged the Swiss franc to the euro at 1.2. However, with the start of quantitative easing in the eurozone, the SNB was forced to remove this peg. This decision caused the Swiss franc to appreciate sharply and suddenly, triggering significant market volatility and a crash.
In such extreme situations, after an STP broker routes orders to a forex bank, if the market experiences significant fluctuations, the forex bank may suffer significant losses. Under the STP model, the forex bank has the right to recover these losses from the broker. However, brokers cannot recover losses from their own clients, as clients generally do not cover losses beyond their account balances. As a result, many forex brokers, faced with such significant losses, may be unable to repay their debts to the forex bank, leading to bankruptcy. In contrast, larger forex brokers, with their greater financial strength and risk tolerance, may be able to withstand such losses and avoid bankruptcy.
This incident highlights that in the forex market, even efficient trading models like STP brokers can be exposed to risks under extreme market conditions. Therefore, when choosing a broker, traders should not only consider the efficiency of the trading model but also assess its risk management capabilities under extreme market conditions. At the same time, traders should also implement appropriate risk management measures, such as reasonably controlling leverage levels and setting stop-loss orders, to mitigate potential market risks.

In the forex two-way trading ecosystem, there is a noteworthy "contrarian signal": when a forex trader encounters deposit rejections or operational restrictions from a broker, it often indicates that they possess mature trading skills and stable profitability. This phenomenon is essentially a result of brokers adopting differentiated screening strategies for different types of traders based on their own profit structures and risk management needs, rather than simply setting customer service thresholds.

---

From the perspective of trader characteristics, brokers often prioritize those who receive "special attention" and are subject to deposit restrictions, particularly sophisticated investors with large capital and infrequent trading habits. These traders typically have well-established investment decision-making systems, and their trading logic is centered around long-term asset appreciation rather than short-term market volatility arbitrage. They formulate trading plans based on macroeconomic data (such as interest rate policies and inflation indicators) and currency pair fundamentals (such as trade balances and central bank intervention), focusing on position control and risk hedging. A single trading cycle can stretch for weeks or even months, and their trading frequency is far lower than that of ordinary small-volume traders. This operating model allows them to tolerate market fluctuations more tolerantly and achieve more stable profits, but from a broker's perspective, they are considered "low-contribution" clients.
A deeper dive into brokerage profit models reveals that their core revenue sources are trading spreads and commissions, both of which are strongly positively correlated with trading frequency. While large traders may earn higher spreads per trade than smaller ones (for example, a 0.1 pip spread on a $1 million position is significantly higher than the same spread on a $10,000 position), their significantly lower trading frequency significantly reduces their cumulative contribution. For example, if a large trader only trades 2-3 times per month, while a smaller trader trades 5-8 times per day, even with this discrepancy in per-trade returns, the smaller trader's total monthly revenue for the broker may still be several times greater than the smaller trader's. This contrast between "high per-trade returns but low frequency" and "low per-trade returns but high frequency" puts large traders at a disadvantage in brokers' customer value rankings, making them "inefficient customers" in terms of revenue. More importantly, sophisticated large traders often have stronger risk identification skills and are less susceptible to brokers' marketing tactics like high leverage and high rebates, further reducing their "commercial value" to brokers.
To balance their profit structure and mitigate potential risks, some brokers indirectly restrict the deposits and operations of large traders through regulatory compliance measures. Repeated requests for proof of funds are a typical example. On the surface, this requirement aligns with Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Customer Due Diligence (CDD) compliance obligations within the global forex regulatory framework. For example, regulatory bodies such as the EU's MiFI DII, the US National Financial Conduct Authority (NFA), and Australia's ASIC all require brokers to verify the legality of client funds to prevent illicit inflows. These practices push the boundaries of compliance, transforming proof of funds requirements into deposit restrictions. For example, even when a client has submitted complete proof of assets (such as bank statements and tax payment certificates), they may still request additional documentation, citing "incomplete documentation" or "questionable sources of funds." Alternatively, they may impose cumbersome verification procedures (such as requiring notarized documents and third-party audit reports), significantly prolonging the deposit review process. The essence of these practices is to indirectly discourage large-capital traders by increasing time costs and operational complexity, directing them to other platforms, thereby focusing limited operational resources on small-volume traders who can generate high-frequency returns.
For large-capital traders who have long been involved in the foreign exchange market, the unspoken industry rules behind these restrictions have become a common understanding. They understand that brokers' compliance requirements are merely superficial justifications; their core objective is to mitigate the impact of "low-yield clients" on their profit structure. This is especially true during periods of extreme market volatility (such as the 2015 Swiss Franc black swan event and the 2020 pandemic liquidity crisis). Large-cap traders possess stronger risk management capabilities and are more likely to mitigate losses through hedging. However, if brokers are unable to generate sufficient returns from their trades while bearing the same market risks (such as liquidity and liquidation risks), their own risk exposure will be further exacerbated. Therefore, restricting deposits from large-cap traders is both a profit optimization strategy and a hidden risk management measure for brokers. It's worth noting that this differentiated treatment also reflects the underlying dynamic between brokers and traders in the foreign exchange market: brokers pursue short-term trading profit maximization, while sophisticated traders pursue long-term asset appreciation. These diverging goals lead to operational conflicts. For traders, encountering deposit restrictions isn't necessarily a negative sign. Instead, it can serve as a "reverse validation" of their trading capabilities and market understanding. Maintaining stable profits despite restrictions demonstrates that their trading systems are robust against market volatility and broker selection. For brokers, however, over-reliance on high-frequency trading strategies carries risks. If market liquidity tightens or regulatory policies tighten, high-frequency traders could rapidly disappear, impacting long-term profit stability. The balance of this game ultimately depends on the effectiveness of market regulation and the improvement of overall industry compliance.

---

---

• 
• 

---

13711580480@139.com

+86 137 1158 0480

+86 137 1158 0480

+86 137 1158 0480

z.x.n@139.com

Mr. Z-X-N

China · Guangzhou

---